Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Another thread gone to the dogs.
How so? Is this a response to my post discussing the term science itself?
LBird,it's a lot easier to make your point if you actually make your point.You could have thrown a hundred or so people at me who had something to say about means and ends, including Stalin.As things stand I didn't think your definition of reformist actually covered reformists, since it could include pro-capitalists and conservatives, reformists, at least in our context, are people who either think capitalism can be formed into something different. That doesn't necessarilly imply elitism.
OED wrote:SCIENCE 1 a. The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something; knowledge as a personal attribute. Now arch. and rare.1 †b. Theoretical or intellectual understanding, as distinct from moral conviction. Paired or contrasted with conscience. Obs.†2. Knowledge or understanding acquired by study; acquaintance with or mastery of any branch of learning. Also in pl.: (a person's) various kinds of knowledge. Obs. 3 a. A particular area of knowledge or study; a recognized branch of learning; spec. (in the Middle Ages) each of the seven subjects forming the trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy). Cf. art n.1 9a(a). Now arch.3 b. In extended use, denoting a game, sport, or other activity conceived as being similarly organized. Freq. somewhat humorous. Now rare except in noble science n.4 a. Paired or contrasted with art (see art n.1 3a). A discipline, field of study, or activity concerned with theory rather than method, or requiring the knowledge and systematic application of principles, rather than relying on traditional rules, acquired skill, or intuition.4 b. A branch of study that deals with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less comprehended by general laws, and incorporating trustworthy methods (now esp. those involving the scientific method and which incorporate falsifiable hypotheses) for the discovery of new truth in its own domain. 4 c. With of. Denoting the application of scientific methods in a field of study, activity, etc., previously considered open only to theories based on subjective, historical, or undemonstrable abstract criteria. 5 a. The kind of organized knowledge or intellectual activity of which the various branches of learning are examples. In early use, with reference to sense 3a: what is taught in universities or may be learned by study. In later use: scientific disciplines considered collectively, as distinguished from other departments of learning; scientific doctrine or investigation; the collective understanding of scientists. Also with modifying word.5 b. spec. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the physical universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. Also: this as a subject of study or examination. Cf. natural science n.5 c. With the. The scientific principles or processes which govern or underpin a (specified) phenomenon, technology, etc. Also: the scientific research into these principles or processes. Usu. with of or behind.So, there are more OED definitions, but the broad thrust is of reliable systematic knowledge, which we could roughly formulate as knowledge derived for and with an Other (in) mind: that does not exist just for me but for an Other. That differs from language, the shaping of my thoughts into a form I can transmit them to an Other in as much asthe uidea was created with the otehr in mind. The language games of science are highly structured with definite registers.
LBird,ever heard of James Duff Brown?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duff_Brown
Quote:Reformists can’t imagine everybody having the same say in the production, distribution and consumption of our wealth.This is just blithering nosense. Many "reformists" would say they agree with our ends, but disagree with the means, and believe that piecemeal change can work. Essentially, it is a project management question. They either suggest peice by peice implementation (or parrallel running, in some circumstances) but we suggest a hard change over.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Wasn't Robin Cook removed as foreign minister at the behest of the Israelis for his lack of 100% support for them?Don't know where you've heard that, ISTR he resigned rather than support the Iraq war (and the constant undermining of the "Ethical Foriegn policy") I think we need to be careful, there's a lot of wild rumours and exagerations about Israel, specifically that it punches above its weight in the British Foreign Office (which has traditionally be pro-Arab anyway, if Yes Minister is to be believed. The British establishment control British foriegn policy in the interest of the British ruling class.
http://theconversation.com/labour-takes-baton-from-piketty-as-it-ramps-up-for-election-year-28063This article shows the sort of disconnect thebween the readers (and implementers) of Piketty's book and his policy prescriptions.
Quote:Beyond the popular image, it does not take long to realise that Piketty is no socialist thinker – when asked: “What’s the matter with inequality”, he affirms that inequality per se is not a problem. The issue is rather in the way inequality is becoming blatantly inimical to how the economic system works and is impeding its recovery. I wasn’t sure that the audience at the Class event, filled with progressive thinkers, would agree with such statement – and it got me wondering.[….] The debate at Class found him also proposing new solutions such as share ownership schemes, popular in Germany.But, the imjportant thing to note is that his r>g has shaken the sort of social-democrat thinking that saw micro-economic efficiency leading to economic growth being the solution to poverty (and inequality, perhaps).
What is ideology? As I've said before, I can probably list about six different meanings of the word (without putting much effort in). For instance Althusser maintained that ideology is lived and subjectivity is a méconnaissance, so claims to a communist ideology could only be spurious in such a context where the subject lives in the material reproduction of capitalism.
There are shades of Marc Dutroux here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux#Allegations_of_cover-upCertainly, we now have more than prima facia evidence that Cyril Smith was a serial child rapist. Avoiding charged words like 'network' and 'ring' it seems clear that he knew and was enabled by other politicians engaged in similar activities. As per the allegations around Elm Guest House, it seems otehrs were invovled.Now, this does not mean there was a cover up. Taking the occam's razor approach, we need to distinguish several different problems.[*]1) An inclination by police not to get caught up in political scandals, and perhaps a deferential approach to politicians.2) Politicians and officials not taking the offences seriopusly, and not triiggering or flagging them when they crossed their desks (this also relates to the so-callde missing files, I'm told by ex-civil servants that civil service records management isn't up to snuff, and orutinely destroys entire sections unless someone marks them as important or still active).3) Active collaboration or interference, either:i) through invovlement in the abuse themselves, or,ii) Through callous desire to protect their mates (or be owed a favour).If this story is true: Editor explains why he didn't publish Barbara Castle's paedophile dossier
Quote:Hale said special branch officers arrived at the Messenger's office, showed him a D-notice and warned him of imprisonment if he failed to hand over the dossier.Then we are beginning to have to start seriously thinking about the upper end on the scale of conspiracy.That said, i think our general approach remains unchanged. We need to be wary of power, deference and control. Child abuse is not a class issue, but cover ups and abuse of power are.[*] The Lib-Dems have been hard hit by all this, as David Steel has had to explain why he didn't take action. They have also had their own version of the Comrade Delta scandal in the form of Mike Hancock and also Lord Rennard. They are big enough not to implode over the issue.
To get a handle on the way this book has been discussd on the radio, this podcast is interesting. Having the BBC discussing rising inequality and capitalism itself is a novelty. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/moreorless_20140602-1200a.mp3
Rulebook wrote:Branches, Groups and members shall neither publish, sell or distribute any political literature in the name of the Party, excepting handbills and leaflets, which has not been approved by the Executive Committee or the New Pamphlets Committee. Election Statements and Election Manifestos, being Official Party Statements, must be approved by the Executive Committee.Per the letters page in the weakly wanking :http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1019/letters/I thought there was an extant conference resolution permitting members to put the party name on their letters to the press, but this may have just been an EC ruling (I couldn't find any such resolution).
Quote:But the good news for the publishers is that they have a surprise defender in the party that claims to be Britain’s second-oldest, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which says it is wrong to pick on one firm for doing what any publisher would do. Instead we should all “condemn the socio-economic system which has led to the repugnant concept of ‘intellectual property”.
